Tilburg University
Difficulties in emotion regulation and psychopathic traits in violent offenders
Garofalo, C.; Neumann, C.S.; Velotti, Patrizia
Published in:
Journal of Criminal Justice
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.013
Publication date: 2018
Document Version Peer reviewed version
Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., & Velotti, P. (2018). Difficulties in emotion regulation and psychopathic traits in violent offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.013
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.013
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation and Psychopathic Traits in Violent Offenders
Carlo Garofalo Tilburg University Craig S. Neumann University of North Texas
Patrizia Velotti University of Genoa
Author Note
Carlo Garofalo, Department of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, The Netherlands; Craig S. Neumann, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton (TX), United States; Patrizia Velotti, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Genoa, Italy. Declarations of interest: none.
Highlights
Examined associations between emotion dysregulation (ED) and psychopathy among
offenders
ED latent profiles varied in degree (i.e., severity across ED domains), rather than in kind
High-ED group reported higher levels of psychopathy, especially affective and lifestyle
traits
Structural equation modeling revealed a positive association between ED and
psychopathy
ED predicted psychopathic traits above and beyond general psychological distress
Purpose: The present study aimed to advance our understanding of the relevance of emotion dysregulation (ED) for psychopathy. Methods: Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were employed to examine person- and variable-centered
associations between ED domains and psychopathic traits in a moderately-large (N = 268) sample of violent male offenders. Results: LPA results indicated a 3-class solution with offenders most accurately classified based on ED levels (low, medium, high) across domains. The three ED subgroups revealed linear positive associations with psychopathy total, affective, and lifestyle facet scores, such that elevated levels of these traits were found in subgroups with greater ED. A similar linear trend emerged for the antisocial – but not interpersonal – facet, in-line with recent studies showing positive associations between executive functioning and
interpersonal features of psychopathy. In SEM analyses, a latent ED factor positively predicted a super-ordinate psychopathy factor, controlling for psychopathological distress. Conclusions: Taken together, current findings support the notion that ED involves broad difficulties across emotion regulation domains, which vary by degree rather than in kind, and that these
difficulties have linear positive relations with psychopathic traits among violent offenders.
Keywords: psychopathy, emotion dysregulation, offenders, latent profile analysis (LPA), structural equation modeling (SEM)
Psychopathic personality is characterized by early-onset and persistent behavioral deviance in the company of a callous and exploitative interpersonal style (Cleckley, 1941/1988; Hare & Neumann, 2008; Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). For the purpose of this study, we define the multifarious construct of psychopathy in terms of clusters of affective (e.g., callousness),
interpersonal (e.g., manipulation), lifestyle (e.g., impulsivity), and antisocial (e.g., poor
behavioral control) features (Hare & Neumann, 2008; Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, 2015). These four domains combine to form the pathological syndrome of psychopathy as operationalized in the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and its derivatives (i.e., PCL: Screening Version, PCL: Youth Version, Self-Report Psychopathy scale; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995; Neumann, Hare, & Newman, 2007; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, 2016).
Many theoretical accounts of psychopathy consider emotional dysfunctions as a central feature of the disorder (Blair, 2005; Cleckley, 1941/1988; Hare & Neumann, 2008; Kosson, Vitacco, Swogger, & Steuerwald, 2016; Lykken, 1995; Patrick et al., 2009). Yet, the extent to which these dysfunctions include problems in emotion regulation is unclear. A deeper understanding of this issue is necessary, as emotion dysregulation may be one of the
mechanisms linking psychopathy and aggressive behavior (Davidson, Putnam, & Larson, 2000; Garofalo, Holden, Zeigler-Hill, & Velotti, 2016; Hare, 2003; Long, Felton, Lilienfeld, & Lejuez, 2014; Patrick & Zempolich, 1998). More broadly, understanding the relevance of emotion regulation for psychopathy may be useful to refine etiological models and treatment approaches, given emotion regulation is shaped throughout the development (Frick & Morris, 2004; Patrick et al., 2009), and represents a dynamic factor that can be targeted in treatment (Garofalo, Velotti, & Zavattini, 2017; Roberton, Daffern, & Bucks, 2015). In the present study, an emotion regulation framework was employed to examine relations between difficulties in emotion regulation domains and psychopathic traits in violent male offenders.
An influential and comprehensive operationalization of the construct defines emotion dysregulation as the impairment in one or more of the following domains: awareness,
understanding, and acceptance of emotional responses; ability to engage in goal-directed behavior when upset; ability to refrain from impulsive behavior when upset; and ability to
engage in effective emotion regulation strategies (Gratz & Roemer, 2004).1 These impairments
have been related to psychopathology trans-diagnostically, and to personality pathology in particular (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Carpenter & Trull, 2013; Dimaggio et al., 2017; Gratz, Rosenthal, Tull, Lejuez, & Gunderson, 2009; Kring & Sloan, 2009). The rationale behind a multi-domain conceptualization of emotion regulation was to pinpoint the dissociable nature of these components to identify how specific domains might be related to distinct forms of psychopathology (Gratz & Roemer, 2004).
However, the preponderance of empirical evidence accumulated so far appears to show that impairments in these domains – at least as assessed via self-report – reflect a general underlying deficit in emotion regulation. Specifically, the emotion regulation dimensions have demonstrated weak discriminant validity, which may indicate that impairments across domains go hand in hand, such that difficulties in emotion regulation vary in degree rather than in kind (for a recent review, see John & Eng, 2014). Yet, no studies to date have examined this issue from a person-centered perspective; that is, if it is possible to identify subtypes of individuals based on unique emotion dysregulation profiles. Among offenders, identifying different subtypes based on emotion dysregulation domain profiles versus levels could help address whether there are unique versus widespread associations between emotion dysregulation
1 For the sake of consistency with the main scope of the present study, we do not address here near-neighbor concepts
domains and psychopathic traits. In either case, research on this issue could help elucidate the relevance of emotion regulation for psychopathy.
Competing Views on the Links of Emotion Dysregulation and Psychopathic Traits
An early review of historical descriptions of the psychopathic personality found general agreement among scholars in considering emotional instability and low frustration tolerance (both intimately linked to emotion dysregulation; Carpenter & Trull, 2013) among the defining features of psychopathy (Albert , Brigante, & Chase, 1959). An explicit reference to a lack of emotional stability remains in the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) model (Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2012), but other contemporary
conceptualizations diverge in the emphasis placed on emotion dysregulation in relation to psychopathic traits. Part of the reason might be that a long-held view considered the
prototypical psychopath as fundamentally devoid of emotions, hence not requiring emotion regulation (Baskin-Sommers, 2017). Yet, lack of empirical support for a complete absence of emotional experience in psychopathy (Brook, Brieman, & Kosson, 2013; Derefinko, 2015; Hoppenbrouwers, Bulten, & Brazil, 2016; Kosson et al., 2016) has led investigators to argue that individuals with psychopathic traits do feel emotions, but have difficulty regulating them
(Baskin-Sommers, Stuppy-Sullivan, & Buckholtz, 2016; Harenski & Kiehl, 2010).
Newman, 2015) have posited that abnormalities in integrative functioning of neural systems – and, in particular, underdeveloped connectivity within emotion-related neural circuitry – would underlie deficits in emotional awareness that characterize psychopathy. In this context, it has been proposed that what is problematic in psychopathy is the lack of initiation of emotional self-regulation, rather than its effectiveness (Vitale & Newman, 2009).
An alternative perspective, developed in the context of the dual-pathway model of psychopathy (Fowles & Dindo, 2009), proposes that emotion dysregulation may have opposite relations to distinct psychopathic traits. Some scholars have argued that indices of emotion dysregulation are related to behavioral (i.e., antisocial-lifestyle, corresponding to the earlier PCL-R Factor 2) traits of psychopathy because they are associated with externalizing symptoms and general psychological distress. In contrast, the dual-pathway model assumes that emotion dysregulation is not relevant to the interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy (i.e., PCL-R Factor 1), which were theorized to be associated with intact emotion regulation, largely based on inverse associations between Factor 1 traits and low levels of negative emotionality and
internalizing symptoms (Fowles & Dindo, 2009; Hicks & Patrick, 2006; Long et al., 2014).2
Both these models were based on the earlier two-factor conceptualization of the PCL-R. However, parsing interpersonal and affective traits into separate components, studies have provided emerging evidence for a positive link between affective traits of psychopathy and both negative emotionality (e.g., other-directed negative emotions; Benning, 2013; Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Jackson, Neumann, & Vitacco, 2007; Lishner et al., 2012; Lynam & Widiger, 2007) and general psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, depression; Colins, Fanti, Salekin, & Andershed, 2016; Neumann & Pardini, 2014). Thus, following the arguments
of the dual-pathway model, affective features of psychopathy may also be related to greater
emotion dysregulation.3 Moreover, in the recently developed triarchic model of psychopathy,
Patrick et al. (2009) identified difficult temperament – that is, a blend of negative affectivity, poor effortful control and poor emotion regulation – as a developmental precursor of meanness and disinhibition (akin to the affective and behavioral traits of PCL-R-assessed psychopathy, respectively), but not boldness, that captures interpersonal functioning. Therefore, based on theory and empirical results, it is reasonable to hypothesize that affective psychopathic traits are related to emotion dysregulation, although it remains unclear if these associations would hold when accounting for general psychological distress. Examining direct links between emotion dysregulation and psychopathic traits, while controlling for the potential confound of
psychological distress, is needed to increase precision in our understanding of their relations.
Overview of Prior Studies on Emotion Dysregulation and Psychopathy
Considering the long-standing tradition of research on emotion regulation and
psychopathology in general (Aldao et al., 2010; Kring & Sloan, 2009), it is surprising that only in the last decade has the study of emotion regulation been applied to psychopathy research. Across different populations and different measures of psychopathy, previous studies have consistently revealed moderate positive associations between emotion dysregulation and higher levels of behavioral psychopathic traits (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; Donahue, McClure, & Moon, 2014; Ermer, Kahn, Salovey, & Kiehl, 2012; Lishner, Swim, Hong, & Vitacco, 2011; Long et al., 2014; Malterer et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2010; Visser, Bay, Cook, & Myburgh,
2010), in line with theoretical expectations.4 However, only one of these studies had controlled
for the influence of negative affect (Donahue et al., 2014), and none of them has ascertained
3 Importantly, drawing inferences regarding emotion regulation based on findings involving negative emotionality
may not be warranted, given that emotion regulation can occur irrespective of extreme levels of negative emotionality, and negative emotionality and emotion regulation can interact in predicting relevant outcomes, including aggression and antisocial behavior (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014; Garofalo & Velotti, 2017).
4 These studies have alternatively used the terms emotional intelligence or emotion regulation to refer to (some of)
whether these associations could be accounted for by levels of general psychological distress often associated with externalizing psychopathology (which subsumes negative affect and other psychopathological symptoms), as would be predicted by some theoretical perspectives.
Findings involving affective and interpersonal traits of psychopathy have been less consistent, and appear to vary depending on whether psychopathy was assessed with PCL-R-based measures or with the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), and depending on whether interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy were conflated in one higher-order factor (i.e., Factor 1) or parsed into lower-order factors. Overall, studies examining the broad-band interpersonal-affective factor provided mixed findings. Among PPI-R-based studies, both null or positive associations with better emotion regulation have been found (Donahue et al., 2014; Howe, Falkenbach, & Massey, 2014; Long et al., 2014; Vidal, Skeem, & Camp, 2010; Watts et al., 2016), providing some support for the dual-pathway model of psychopathy (Fowles & Dindo, 2009). In contrast, PCL-R-based studies have found evidence of poor emotion regulation (Ermer et al., 2012; Lishner et al., 2011; Malterer et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2010; Visser et al., 2010). In some of these studies,
affective-interpersonal psychopathic traits were specifically related to poor emotional awareness, and in others there was evidence for widespread emotion dysregulation across domains, providing only partial support for the response-modulation theory (Patterson & Newman, 1993).
Interestingly, those few studies that focused on narrow-band interpersonal and affective components have provided more consistent evidence across different psychopathy measures, with emotion dysregulation being positively linked to affective traits (i.e., PCL-R affective, and PPI Coldheartedness and Fearlessness), and negatively related or unrelated to interpersonal traits of psychopathy (i.e., PCL-R interpersonal, PPI-R stress immunity and social potency; Donahue et al., 2014; Garofalo, Neumann, & Kosson, 2017; Vidal et al., 2010).5 This pattern of
5 The stress immunity scale is likely a blend of interpersonal and affective traits, at least to the extent it assesses low
results is consistent with recent findings that the interpersonal and affective facets of psychopathy show positive and negative associations, respectively, with intelligence and
executive functioning (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2015; Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2004; Vitacco, Neumann, & Wodushek, 2008), since each of these cognitive variables are related to better emotion regulation (Dixon, Thiruchselvam, Todd, & Christoff, 2017; Watts et al., 2016). In addition, the differential associations that interpersonal and affective traits have with emotion regulation appear consistent with the theoretical premises of the triarchic model, according to which emotion dysregulation may be a developmental precursor of affective (i.e., callousness, meanness), but not interpersonal psychopathic traits (i.e., boldness; Patrick et al., 2009).
The Present Study
Taken together, prior studies have shown consistent associations between the behavioral features of psychopathy and emotion dysregulation, although it is uncertain whether they mainly reflect general psychological distress. This consideration and the less clear picture concerning the interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy may contribute to uncertainties regarding the relevance of emotion dysregulation in psychopathy more broadly. Further,
previous studies have not provided clear indications as to whether different components of emotion dysregulation can be selectively impaired and differentially related to psychopathic traits. Relatedly, no study to-date has adopted a person-centered perspective to uncover
subtypes of individuals based on emotion dysregulation profiles, nor has any study attempted to combine person- and variable-centered methods to test if knowledge at the variable-level
translates to findings at the person-level. Thus, additional research that employs both variable and person-centered approaches can significantly increase the precision and depth of
information on this topic, while limiting the risk of unwarranted conclusions about individuals based on variable associations.
the multi-domain construct of emotion regulation and its relations to psychopathic traits in violent offenders. In light of the proposed idea that emotion dysregulation components reflect distinct and dissociable processes, we conducted latent profile analyses to test whether subtypes with specific emotion dysregulation profiles could be empirically uncovered. Based on weak findings regarding the discriminant validity of the emotion dysregulation domains that have been examined, we remained agnostic about the possibility of finding unique emotion
dysregulation profiles based on different constellations of impairments, as opposed to finding profiles that would differ in severity (across domains) rather than in kind. Next, we validated the LPA subgroups that emerged based on associations with psychopathic traits across domains (i.e., interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, antisocial). When still blind to the LPA results, we hypothesized that we would at least identify a profile of offenders characterized by greater emotion dysregulation, and that this profile would also show higher levels of psychopathic traits. Based on the limited literature, we also expected that more affective features of psychopathy would be evidenced by offenders with greater emotion dysregulation. Finally, to examine the consistency of person- and variable-centered methods, we tested latent variable associations between psychopathic traits and emotion dysregulation, while controlling for psychological distress, again expecting to reveal a significant positive association between emotion
dysregulation and psychopathic traits, above and beyond the effect of psychological distress.
Method Participants and Procedures
Data were obtained from 268 male violent offenders incarcerated in seven prisons in
Northern Italy (Mage = 37.36, SD = 11.82). The majority of participants were Italian (46%) or
robbery, murder, serious physical assault, sexual offense, and minor repeated physical assaults).6 After being informed about the aim of the study, all participants provided their
written informed consent and participated without receiving any compensation. Participants were assured that their decisions to participate or decline would not affect their detention status. They were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time and have their
responses removed from the database. The administration of questionnaires was completed in individual or small group sessions that took place in a quiet room where inmates usually meet with prison educators. When possible, the small group sessions were preferred to limit the burden on prison staff members. Two researchers were always present in the room to ensure that participants would fill out the questionnaires independently. Data were collected
anonymously and prison staff was not informed about individual scores. The local university Ethics Review Boards and the Italian Ministry of Justice formally approved the study.
Measures
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Emotion
dysregulation was measured with the DERS, a widely used self-report measure with 36 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The DERS was developed to capture difficulties in six
interrelated dimensions: nonacceptance of emotional responses (Nonacceptance); difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior when distressed (Goals); difficulties refraining from impulsive behavior when upset (Impulse); lack of awareness of and attention for emotions (Awareness); limited access to effective emotion regulation strategies (Strategies); and lack of emotional clarity (Clarity). Items are summed to produce scale and total scores, with greater scores indicating greater difficulties in emotion regulation. Prior studies suggest that the DERS total score represents a reliable global index of overall emotion regulation difficulties that shows
meaningful associations with physiological, behavioral, and neural indices of emotion regulation (Gratz et al., 2009; John & Eng, 2014), but the six subscales have shown weak evidence of discriminant validity (John & Eng, 2014). Both the original version (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) and its Italian adaptation (Giromini, Velotti, de Campora, Bonalume, & Zavattini, 2012) have shown adequate psychometric properties, with the partial exception of the Awareness scale, which often shows relatively poorer internal consistency and construct validity (John & Eng, 2014). Nevertheless, for the present study we opted for keeping in the Awareness scale for continuity with previous research. Internal consistency in the present sample ranged between α = .51 - .88, with mean inter-item correlations ranging between .16 and .39 (see Table 1).
Self-Report Psychopathy-Short Form (SRP-SF; Paulhus et al., 2016). The SRP-SF
both English and Italian and blind to the original items performed a back-translation in English. Both the translated and back-translated versions were approved by the publisher and two of the authors (R.D. Hare and C.S. Neumann) of the SRP-SF. Internal consistency in the present sample ranged between α = .52 - .87, with mean inter-item correlations ranging between .14 and .29 (see Table 1).
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). The Italian version
of the BSI was used as a measure of psychological distress. The BSI is a 53-item inventory derived from the widely used Symptom Checklist-90-R. Participants had to rate the severity of psychological symptoms they suffered over the past month on a 5-point Likert scale. The BSI include nine subscales (somatization, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid symptoms, psychoticism) and a global index of distress (Global Severity Index; GSI), which is the mean score of all 53 items. The BSI has demonstrated good psychometric properties in both the original (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) and Italian version (Garofalo, Velotti, Crocamo, & Carrà, 2017). We conducted a
preliminary CFA and the BSI scales loaded significantly (range = .70 to .87, p’s < .001) on a single (unidimensional factor with good model fit (CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08)
Data Analytic Approach
Internal consistency estimates, descriptive statistics, and bivariate correlations were computed in SPSS. Concerning the first main aim of the present study, we used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify naturally occurring DERS profiles of emotion dysregulation among participants. LPA is a person-centered approach used to cluster participants rather than variables (i.e., identify latent subgroups within the data through maximum likelihood
classes individuals that are similar in terms of constellations of indicators (Vermunt &
Magidson, 2006). Simulation studies have shown that the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size adjusted BIC are reliable indices for selecting the optimal model, with models having lower BIC values being preferred (Nylund, Asparoutiov, & Muthen, 2007). Further, the Lo-Mendel-Rubin (LMR) likelihood difference tests the fit between two nested models that differ by one class. A significant LMR p-value indicates that a model fits the data significantly better than the model with one less class, whereas a non-significant LMR test for k classes indicates that the k-1 class solution is a better model. Theoretical coherence and classification accuracy of the obtained subtypes are also a useful guide for deciding on optimal number of classes. Viable LPA solutions are obtained when the average latent class probabilities for the most likely class membership are .80 or greater (Vermunt & Magidson, 2006). To validate DERS subtypes, primary analyses involved a series of planned comparisons (one-way ANOVAs) on SRP-SF scores between the DERS subtypes emerged from the LPA.
For the second aim of the study, we examined variable-centered associations between latent psychopathy and emotion dysregulation factors, while accounting for psychological distress. Structural equation modeling (SEM) using robust weighted least squares estimation procedure was employed. SEM is a rigorous statistical method for understanding the latent variable dimensions of the measures examined as well as their associations. The advantages of SEM over classical test theory include modeling error separately from common variance, specification of unambiguous item-to-factor relations, and providing robust evidence of
facets in conjunction with the higher-order DERS factor to examine how psychopathy facets correlated with a broad emotion dysregulation factor. To assess model fit, a two-index strategy was adopted (Hu & Bentler, 1999), using the incremental Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the absolute Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) index. We relied on the
traditional CFI > .90 and RMSEA < .08 as indicative of acceptable model fit to avoid falsely rejecting viable latent variable models, given that model complexity increases the difficulty of achieving more conservative levels of model fit (West, Taylor, & Wu, 2012). Lastly, an SEM was specified to examine how the superordinate SRP-SF factor was predicted by both the DERS and psychological distress (BSI) factors. In this way, we could determine if emotion dysregulation had incremental predictive validity in predicting psychopathic traits, above and beyond distress.
Results
Internal consistency estimates, descriptive statistics, and manifest-variable bivariate associations between SRP-SF facets and DERS scales are reported in Table 1. Based on SRP Manual norms for offenders (Paulhus et al., 2016), the mean SRP-SF total score for the current sample was generally consistent with what is seen in male offenders from North American. The SRP Manual indicates that a total SRP-SF score of 94-95 for offenders represents elevated psychopathic traits. Using a total score of 95, there were 14.2% of cases reporting elevated psychopathic traits. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed widespread positive significant associations between DERS total and scale scores and SRP-SF total and scale scores, mostly with small-to-moderate magnitude. With few exceptions, the correlation pattern highlighted that psychopathic traits were positive related to difficulties in emotion regulation.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Latent Profile Analysis of Emotion Dysregulation Dimensions and Associations with Psychopathic Traits
The average latent class assignment probabilities for the 3-class model suggested a high degree of class differentiation, ranging between .94 and .99 for most likely class membership.
[Insert Table 2 and Figure 1 about here]
The three latent classes are graphically summarized in Figure 1. Rather than by different subtypes characterized by unique profiles, the DERS subgroups were characterized by uniformly low (C1; N = 116; 43.3%), medium (C2; N = 130; 48.5%), or high levels (C3; N = 22; 8.2%) of emotion dysregulation, and thus did not appear to reflect subtypes with distinct profiles, but more so subgroups which differed in degree of emotion dysregulation, bearing support to the dimensional nature of emotion dysregulation across domains. The only exception was that there was little differentiation of the subtypes on the Awareness scale. This latent profile solution is consistent with the strong latent correlations typically found among the DERS first-order factors, as well as our current CFA results of a single unidimensional DERS model (see below). Thus, the current and previous finding highlight that each DERS scale domain reflects different manifestations of a broad difficulty in emotion regulation (John & Eng, 2014). Further, the fact that the DERS Awareness scales did not show the same pattern of the other DERS subscales is consistent with an increasing number of studies indicating that the Awareness scale contributes minimally to the overall DERS model (John & Eng, 2014).
small-to-moderate in magnitude.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
Modeling Associations between Psychopathy and Emotion Dysregulation CFA Results. The CFA results indicated acceptable fit for the 4-factor model of the
Italian SRP-SF items (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06). All factor loadings were significant and the factors were strongly inter-correlated (p’s < .05 - .001). See Supplemental Figure 1 for details. We also ran a CFA with the four psychopathy factors and a superordinate DERS factor, which showed good fit (CFI = .90, RMSEA = .05). As expected, modeling measurement error
separately from common variance, the latent psychopathy factors showed an increased
association (p’s < .003 - .0001) with the DERS superordinate factor, r’s = .20 - .23 (antisocial, interpersonal) and r’s = .49 - .50 (affective, lifestyle), compared to the manifest-variable correlations between the SRP-SF scales and DERS total (cfr. Table 1).
SEM Results. Given the strong latent correlations between SRP-SF factors, we set the
four (first-order) factors to load on a super-ordinate factor, and to represent the syndrome of psychopathy (Neumann et al., 2007). The super-ordinate psychopathy factor was set to be predicted by the DERS factor, while controlling for the psychological distress (BSI) factor. This model included the SRP-SF items as indicators for their respective factors, along with the DERS and the BSI subscales as indicators for their respective emotion dysregulation and psychological distress factor. The a-priori choice of focusing on the DERS super-ordinate factor, rather than on the subscales, was driven by accumulating evidence that the DERS subscales have weak discriminant validity and may be more accurately represent reflections of broader emotion dysregulation. This choice was also consistent with the results of LPA analysis. The SEM
accounted for 16% of the variance in the psychopathy factor. [Figure 2 about here]
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is among the first studies to employ an emotion regulation framework to understand psychopathic traits combining latent person- and variable-centered methods. As such, the present study offers new insights and methodological approaches for examining the role of emotion dysregulation in psychopathic personality. Findings provided evidence that psychopathy is positively linked with emotion dysregulation among violent male offenders. The association between psychopathic traits and emotion dysregulation was not accounted for by levels of psychological distress. Critically, the subgroup with the greatest degree of emotional dysregulation also manifested the highest level of affective psychopathic features, compared to the other two subgroups. Further, our correlational findings (both manifest and latent variable) suggest that the four psychopathy factors may have different degrees of associations with emotion dysregulation, with the affective and lifestyle factors especially associated with greater emotion dysregulation.
At the same time, the correlational results showed positive associations between emotion dysregulation and psychopathic traits across facets, suggesting that there is some uniformity in the associations between greater difficulties in emotion regulation and higher levels of
emotion regulation have clear conceptual overlap with the behavioral traits of psychopathy (i.e., disinhibition, aggression), their relevance for affective traits of psychopathy have not been extensively examined. The current results challenge traditional conceptualizations that core affective features of psychopathy simply reflect unemotionality, and instead suggest, to some degree, that they also involve affective dysregulation.
From a person-centered perspective, the LPAs conducted with the six emotion dysregulation dimensions indicated that a 3-class solution provided the most parsimonious model with high classification accuracy. Rather than finding evidence of unique patterns of profiles (i.e., distinct subtypes) of emotion dysregulation (e.g., elevation on some but not other scales of the DERS), as proposed by the DERS model (Gratz & Roemer, 2004), individuals were more aptly classified (grouped) based on the severity of impairments in emotion dysregulation across domains. In keeping with an increasing number of studies, as well as with our SEM analysis, this finding suggests that the DERS dimensions may represent alternative
The subgroups were validated by looking at elevations on psychopathic traits across DERS subtypes. Greater levels of emotion dysregulation were associated with higher
psychopathic traits, especially affective and lifestyle traits. The most notable differentiation of the DERS subgroups was found for affective traits, with the most severe emotion dysregulation subgroup (C3) showing the highest levels of affective psychopathic features. The antisocial facet showed a similar pattern, although the differences across profiles were not statistically
significant. In contrast, only the two DERS subgroups of offenders with low-to-moderate emotion dysregulation differed in terms of interpersonal psychopathy traits (moderate > low). This finding suggests that, although the interpersonal traits of psychopathy may be modestly related with emotion dysregulation, from a person-centered perspective, offenders with severe emotion dysregulation may not manifest notable levels of interpersonal psychopathic features. Only in offenders with relatively more intact emotion regulation skills will there be potential elevation in interpersonal features, likely connected to better intelligence and executive functioning.
In light of the different pattern emerged for the interpersonal facet, there may be
personality (Neumann et al., 2007), and none of them alone is sufficient to represent psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Lynam & Miller, 2012).
The CFA results provided support for the adequacy of the four-factor structure of the SRP-SF in its Italian version, which adds to the considerable support for this model (Neumann et al., 2015). Subsequently, SEM analyses were conducted on the most parsimonious model which involved the use of a super-ordinate (SRP-SF) psychopathy factor (in-line with research on the PCL-R; Neumann et al., 2007), and a super-ordinate emotion dysregulation (DERS) factor, accounting for individual differences in psychological distress, as indexed by the BSI factor. This SEM analysis revealed that greater levels of psychopathy were predicted by greater levels of psychopathological distress. After accounting for psychological distress (which was strongly associated with the DERS factor), greater levels of psychopathy were also predicted by greater difficulties in emotion regulation, in line with recent studies suggesting a general disturbance in affective functioning in psychopathic individuals (Hoppenbrouwers et al., 2016; Neumann, Johansson, & Hare, 2013). These results showed that psychopathy, represented in terms of a broad syndrome, is positively linked with emotion dysregulation, but this link is not fully accounted for by general psychological distress.
Notably, person- and variable- centered findings were strikingly consistent, providing evidence of a positive association between psychopathic traits and difficulties in emotion regulation. As opposed to the notion that psychopathy involves deficient affective experience, our results suggest that psychopathy also involves disturbances in the ability to regulate emotions, with the largest effect sizes reported for the affective and lifestyle psychopathy domains. Rather than being redundant, evidence that the associations between psychopathic traits and emotion dysregulation are comparable from variable and person-centered
that differ qualitatively and not only quantitatively.
Corroborating and extending previous findings (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2016; Ermer et al., 2012; Long et al., 2014; Malterer et al., 2008), these results advance current knowledge suggesting that the role of emotion dysregulation in psychopathy is stronger and more specific than previously noted. In contrast with the hypothesis of the dual-pathway model (Fowles & Dindo, 2009), the associations between emotion dysregulation and psychopathic traits were not limited to the behavioral features and were not accounted for by increased levels of general psychological distress often related to externalizing psychopathology. Our findings also provide only partial support for the hypotheses of the response-modulation theory (Patterson &
Newman, 1993). As would be expected by the response-modulation theory, relations with emotion dysregulation were not limited to the behavioral traits of psychopathy but extended to its affective features. However, these relations did not involve different components of emotion dysregulation, but broader difficulties in emotion regulation across domains. Furthermore, compared to theories based on the early two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy, our findings support the utility of parsing the interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy in separate components, especially from a person-centered perspective (Mokros et al., 2015; Neumann et al., 2016).
The current findings may also have relevant implications for the management of
offenders with psychopathic traits, challenging the long-held belief that psychopathic offenders should not be allocated to interventions aimed at improving emotion regulation skills. In line with recent recommendations for the treatment of violent and sexual offenders (Garofalo, Velotti, & Zavattini, 2017; Gillespie, Mitchell, Fisher, & Beech, 2012; Roberton, Daffern, & Bucks, 2015), the current findings suggest that psychopathic offenders may also benefit from interventions targeting the awareness, understanding, and management of emotional
Limitations
The current findings should be considered in light of the study limitations. First, we relied on self-report measures, which could have inflated covariation among study variables due to common method variance. Although both the SRP-SF and the DERS have shown strong correlations with non-self-report indices of psychopathy and emotion dysregulation, respectively, future investigations with clinician-rated assessment of psychopathy and laboratory measures of emotion regulation are warranted to examine the robustness of the current findings. Second, the cross-sectional design of the study does not allow us to speculate about the directionality of the associations between psychopathy and emotion dysregulation. Yet, current findings may stimulate longitudinal investigations on the associations between emotion dysregulation and psychopathic traits over time. Third, our sample consisted of male incarcerated violent offenders, and the generalizability of our findings to different populations requires further scrutiny. Fourth, the internal consistency coefficients of some of the scales used in this study fell below desirable limits, though of course, alpha is strongly influenced by scale length and the SRP facets and the DERS subscales are indeed very brief. However, because low internal consistency deflates correlation coefficients, the alpha coefficients of some of the scales used place our correlational results on the conservative side, rather than inflating the risk of overestimation. Moreover, the latent-variable modeling approach adopted for the main
hypothesis testing allowed us to account for imperfect measurement. Finally, future studies may attempt to extend current findings by incorporating a different operationalization of
psychopathy, such as the PPI and its derivatives (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), or the triarchic model of psychopathy (Patrick et al., 2009).
Conclusions
that difficulties in emotion regulation may not be selectively related to the behavioral
References
Albert , R. S., Brigante, T. R., & Chase, M. (1959). The Psychopathic Personality: A Content Analysis of the Concept. The Journal of General Psychology, 60(1), 17-28. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1959.9710204
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217-237. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004
Ali, F., Amorim, I. S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 47(7), 758-762. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.016
Baskin-Sommers, A. R. (2017). Psychopaths have feelings: can they learn how to use them? Retrieved from https://aeon.co/ideas/psychopaths-have-feelings-can-they-learn-how-to-use-them
Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Brazil, I. A., Ryan, J., Kohlenberg, N. J., Neumann, C. S., & Newman, J. P. (2015). Mapping the association of global executive functioning onto diverse measures of psychopathic traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(4), 336-346. doi: 10.1037/per0000125
Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Stuppy-Sullivan, A. M., & Buckholtz, J. (2016). Psychopathic
Individuals Exhibit but Do Not Avoid Regret During Counterfactual Decision Making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(50), 14438-14443. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1609985113
Benning, S. D. (2013). Heterogeneity in Content and Psychopathies: Comment on Marcus et al. Personality Disorders-Theory Research and Treatment, 4(1), 83-84. doi:
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 340-350. doi:
10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective to the disorder of psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 865-891. doi:
10.1017/s0954579405050418
Brook, M., Brieman, C. L., & Kosson, D. S. (2013). Emotion processing in Psychopathy
Checklist-assessed psychopathy: a review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 979-995. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.07.008
Carpenter, R. W., & Trull, T. J. (2013). Components of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder: a review. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(1), 335. doi:
10.1007/s11920-012-0335-2
Cleckley, H. (1941/1988). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Colins, O. F., Fanti, K., Salekin, R. T., & Andershed, H. (2016). Psychopathic personality in the general population: Differences and similarities across gender. Journal of Personality Disorders. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2016_30_237
Cooke, D. J., Hart, S. D., Logan, C., & Michie, C. (2012). Explicating the Construct of
Psychopathy: Development and Validation of a Conceptual Model, the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(4), 242-252. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2012.746759
DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Foundation for a temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 10-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.11.001
Derefinko, K. J. (2015). Psychopathy and Low Anxiety: Meta-Analytic Evidence for the Absence of Inhibition, Not Affect. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 693-709. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12124 Derogatis, L., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symtpom Inventory. An introductory report.
Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595-605.
Dimaggio, G., Popolo, R., Montano, A., Velotti, P., Perrini, F., Buonocore, L., . . . Salvatore, G. (2017). Emotion dysregulation, symptoms, and interpersonal problems as independent predictors of a broad range of personality disorders in an outpatient sample. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice. doi:10.1111/papt.12126
Dixon, M. L., Thiruchselvam, R., Todd, R., & Christoff, K. (2017). Emotion and the Prefrontal Cortex: An Integrative Review. Psychological Bulletin. doi: 10.1037/bul0000096 Donahue, J. J., McClure, K. S., & Moon, S. M. (2014). The relationship between emotion
regulation difficulties and psychopathic personality characteristics. Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(2), 186-194. doi: 10.1037/per0000025 Eisenbarth, H., Krammer, S., Edwards, B. G., Kiehl, K. A., & Neumann, C. S. (2018). Structural
analysis of the PCL-R and relationship to BIG FIVE personality traits and parenting characteristics in an Hispanic female offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 129, 59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.015
Ermer, E., Kahn, R. E., Salovey, P., & Kiehl, K. A. (2012). Emotional intelligence in incarcerated men with psychopathic traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 194-204.
Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2009). Temperament and Psychopathy: A Dual-Pathway Model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 179-183.
Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 54-68. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3301_6
Garofalo, C., Holden, C. J., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Velotti, P. (2016). Understanding the Connection Between Self-Esteem and Aggression: The Mediating Role of Emotion Dysregulation. Aggressive Behavior, 42(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1002/ab.21601
Garofalo, C., & Neumann, C. S. (2018). Psychopathy and Emotion Regulation: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. In M. DeLisi (Ed.), Routledge International Handbook of
Psychopathy and Crime. London, UK: Routledge.
Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., & Kosson, D. S. (2017). Psychopathic traits and emotion regulation. Paper presented at the 7th biennial meeting of the Society for the Scientific
Study of Psychopathy (SSSP 2017), Antwerp, BE.
Garofalo, C., & Velotti, P. (2017). Negative emotionality and aggression in violent offenders: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.05.015
Garofalo, C., Velotti, P., Crocamo, C., & Carrà, G. (2017). Single and Multiple
Clinical Syndromes in Incarcerated Offenders: Associations With Dissociative Experiences and Emotionality. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. doi: 10.1177/0306624X16682325
Garofalo, C., Velotti, P., & Zavattini, G. C. (2017). Emotion Regulation and Aggression: The Incremental Contribution of Alexithymia, Impulsivity, and Emotion Dysregulation Facets. Psychology of Violence. doi:10.1037/vio0000141
controlled breathing techniques. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 333-343. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.005
Giromini, L., Velotti, P., de Campora, G., Bonalume, L., & Zavattini, G. C. (2012). Cultural adaptation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale: reliability and validity of an Italian version. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(9), 989-1007. doi:
10.1002/jclp.21876
Gordts, S., Uzieblo, K., Neumann, C., Van den Bussche, E., & Rossi, G. (2015). Validity of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scales (SRP-III Full and Short Versions) in a Community Sample. Assessment. doi: 10.1177/1073191115606205
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41-54. doi: 10.1023/b:joba.0000007455.08539.94
Gratz, K. L., Rosenthal, M. Z., Tull, M. T., Lejuez, C. W., & Gunderson, J. G. (2009). An
experimental investigation of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, S(1), 18-26. doi:
10.1037/1949-2715.s.1.18
Gross, J. J., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Emotion Generation and Emotion Regulation: One or Two Depends on Your Point of View. Emot Rev, 3(1), 8-16. doi: 10.1177/1754073910380974 Hallquist, M. N., & Wright, A. G. C. (2014). Mixture Modeling Methods for the Assessment of
Normal and Abnormal Personality, Part I: Cross-Sectional Models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 256-268. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.845201
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health System.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246. doi:
10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452
Harenski, C., & Kiehl, K. A. (2010). Reactive aggression in psychopathy and the role of
frustration: Susceptibility, experience, and control. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 6. doi: 10.1348/000712609X471067
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health System.
Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2006). Psychopathy and negative emotionality: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 276-287. doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.115.2.276
Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., Bulten, B. H., & Brazil, I. A. (2016). Parsing fear: A reassessment of the evidence for fear deficits in psychopathy. Psychological Bulletin, 142(6), 573-600. doi: 10.1037/bul0000040
Howe, J., Falkenbach, D., & Massey, C. (2014). The Relationship among Psychopathy,
Emotional Intelligence, and Professional Success in Finance. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(4), 337-347. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2014.951103
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-a MultidisciplinModeling-ary JournModeling-al, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
John, O. P., & Eng, J. (2014). Three approaches to individual differences in affect regulation: Conceptualization, measures, and findings. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 523-534.
Kosson, D. S., Vitacco, M. J., Swogger, M. T., & Steuerwald, B. L. (2016). Emotional Experiences of the Psychopath. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The Clinical and Forensic Assessment of Psychopathy: A Practitioner's Guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kring, A. M., & Sloan, D. M. (2009). Emotion Regulation and Psychopathology. A
Transdiagnostic Approach to Etiology and Treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 327-340. doi:
10.1037/a0026987
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised, Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Lishner, D. A., Swim, E. R., Hong, P. Y., & Vitacco, M. J. (2011). Psychopathy and ability emotional intelligence: Widespread or limited association among facets? Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 1029-1033. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.018 Lishner, D. A., Vitacco, M. J., Hong, P. Y., Mosley, J., Miska, K., & Stocks, E. L. (2012).
Evaluating the Relation Between Psychopathy and Affective Empathy: Two Preliminary Studies. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(8), 1161-1181. doi: 10.1177/0306624x11421891
aggression. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(4), 390-396. doi: 10.1037/per0000085
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Fearless dominance and psychopathy: a response to
Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 341-353. doi: 10.1037/a0028296
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of personality to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2), 160-178. doi:
10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.160
Maj, M. (2016). The Continuum of Depressive States in the Population and the Differential Diagnosis Between “Normal” Sadness and Clinical Depression In J. C. Wakefield & S. Demazeux (Eds.), Sadness or Depression? (pp. 29-38). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Malterer, M. B., Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Psychopathy and Trait Emotional
Intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 735-745. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.007
Miller, J. D., Dir, A., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., Pryor, L. R., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: comparing Factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78(5), 1529-1564. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x
Mokros, A., Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., Santtila, P., Habermeyer, E., & Nitschke, J. (2015). Variants of psychopathy in adult male offenders: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 372-386. doi: 10.1037/abn0000042
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate nature of the psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2), 102-117. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.102
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2015). Antisociality and the Construct of
Psychopathy: Data From Across the Globe. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 678-692. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12127
Neumann, C. S., Johansson, P. T., & Hare, R. D. (2013). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), low anxiety, and fearlessness: a structural equation modeling analysis. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(2), 129-137. doi: 10.1037/a0027886
Neumann, C. S., & Pardini, D. (2014). Factor structure and construct validity of the self-report psychopathy (SRP) scale and the youth psychopathic traits inventory (YPI) in young men. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(3), 419-433.
Neumann, C. S., Vitacco, M. J., & Mokros, A. (2016). Using both variable-centered and person-centered approaches to understanding psychopathic personality. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner's guide (pp. 14-31). Nylund, K. L., Asparoutiov, T., & Muthen, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in
latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569.
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.
Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913-938. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000492 Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A. (1998). Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic
Patterson, C. M., & Newman, J. (1993). Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review, 100, 716-736.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Manual of the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2015). Beyond anger control: Difficulty attending to emotions also predicts aggression in offenders. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 74-83. doi: 10.1037/a0037214
Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A. M., & Zalot, A. A. (2004). Psychopathy in youth and intelligence: an investigation of Cleckley's hypothesis. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 33(4), 731-742. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3304_8
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure and health (pp. 25–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Strauss, M., & Smith, G. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1-25.
Tamir, M. (2011). The Maturing Field of Emotion Regulation. Emotion Review, 3(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1177/1754073910388685
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2006). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. MCCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89-106). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Visser, B. A., Bay, D., Cook, G. L., & Myburgh, J. (2010). Psychopathic and antisocial, but not emotionally intelligent. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 644-648. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.003
Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Wodushek, T. (2008). Differential associations between the dimensions of psychopathy and intelligence. Replication With Adult Jail Inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 48-55.
Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2009). Psychopathic violence: A cognitive-attention perspective. In M. McMurran & R. Howard (Eds.), Personality, Personality Disorder, and Violence (pp. 247-264). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Watts, A. L., Salekin, R. T., Harrison, N., Clark, A., Waldman, I. D., Vitacco, M. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2016). Psychopathy: Relations With Three Conceptions of Intelligence.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. doi: 10.1037/per0000183 West, S. G., Taylor, A., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation
Table 1
Internal consistency coefficients (α), means, standard deviations (SD), and bivariate associations for all study variables (N = 268).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. DERS 1. Total ― 2. Nonacceptance .75*** ― 3. Goals .71*** .48*** ― 4. Impulse .78*** .45*** .49*** ― 5. Awareness .29*** -.12 .06 .16** ― 6. Strategies .86*** .69*** .52*** .58*** .05 ― 7. Clarity .65*** .37*** .39*** .41*** .21*** .48*** ― SRP-SF 8. Total .34*** .09 .22*** .43*** .25*** .20** .35*** ― 9. Interpersonal .20** .02 .09 .26*** .20** .12** .15* .83*** ― 10. Affective .34*** .09 .17** .39*** .20** .26*** .26*** .68*** .46*** ― 11. Lifestyle .39*** .18** .31*** .46*** .19** .23*** .26*** .85*** .59*** .47*** ― 12. Antisocial .19** .01 .13* .28*** .19** .06 .15* .83*** .58*** .35*** .63*** ― α .88 .75 .67 .79 .52 .80 .51 .87 .74 .52 .67 .67 MIC .18 .34 .30 .39 .16 .33 .17 .19 .29 .14 .23 .21 M 81.54 14.75 13.07 13.20 14.08 16.52 9.86 73.01 17.08 17.69 19.27 15.69 (SD) (20.04) (5.50) (4.25) (5.29) (4.23) (6.21) (3.42) (18.46) (5.90) (4.87) (5.79) (6.26) Note. DERS = Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. SRP-SF = Self-Report Psychopathy-Short Form.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 2
Model P LL BIC BICadj LMR p Classification Accuracy 1-class 12 -1894.71 3856.52 3818.48 - - 2-class 19 -1716.19 3538.61 3478.37 .000 .94 - .96 3-class 26 -1661.16 3467.69 3385.26 .003 .94 - .99 4-class 33 -1628.38 3441.26 3336.63 .206 .84 - .92
Note. P = number of free parameters; LL = log-likelihood; BIC = Bayesian information criteria; BICadj = adjusted BIC; LMR p = p-value of the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted ratio test for k versus k-1 class solution (low p-value rejects k-1 model in favor of k class model). Best fitting model indices in bold.
Table 3
Low DERS Medium DERS High DERS
Variable Class 1 (C1) Class 2 (C2) Class 3 (C3) C1 vs C2 C1 vs C3 C2 vs C3
Self-Report Psychopathy-Short Form (SRP-SF) F(1,244) F(1,136) F(1,150)
Interpersonal 16.18 (5.07) 17.90 (6.32) 17.00 (6.84) 5.48, p= .02 ns ns (η2p = .02) Affective 16.41 (4.54) 18.38 (4.53) 20.31 (6.57) 11.56, p= .001 11.68, p= .001 2.96, p= .08 (η2p = .05) (η2p = .08) (η2p = .02) Lifestyle 17.52 (5.65) 20.37 (5.56) 22.04 (5.46) 15.85, p= .000 11.98, p= .001 ns (η2p = .06) (η2p = .08) Antisocial 15.23 (5.45) 15.96 (6.62) 16.50 (8.05) ns ns ns SRP-SF Total 68.53 (17.19) 75.87 (17.98) 79.42 (22.79) 10.64, p= .001 6.96, p= .009 ns (η2p = .04) (η2p = .05) _________________
Figure 1. Latent subtype profiles: Mean item DERS scale scores. 1,85 2,05 1,6 2,19 1,45 1,56 2,73 2,95 2,49 2,54 2,36 2,23 4,05 3,58 3,6 2,04 3,51 2,57
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Non-Accept
Goals
Impulse
Aware
Strategy
Clarity
DE RS Mean It em Sco re
DERS Scales
DERS Subtype Profiles
C1Figure 2. SEM results with the SRP-SF super-ordinate psychopathy factor predicted by latent DERS and BSI super-ordinate factors Interpersonal Affective Lifestyle Antisocial .25 Neg. Affect (BSI)
Dep Anx Hos Pho Par Psy
.78 .73 .87 .81 .64 .72 Non-accept Goals Impulse Aware Strategy Clarity DERS Psychopathy (SRP-SF) .20 .67 .85 .92 .99 .87
Som Obs Int
